Has ASEAN become Marginalized within Regional Security Architecture?
South Asian leaders continue to reiterate how “central” ASEAN is to the region’s security architecture. However, in practice, the tendency is to prioritize bilateral agreements, gradually marginalizing the organization. This fragmentation is weakening regional cooperation, accentuating divisions, and compromising stability in the context of growing tensions in the Indo-Pacific. These trends are worrying at a time when Sino-American rivalries are becoming more acute.
The global competition between China and the United States is particularly evident in Southeast Asia in the area of security. In this maritime and continental space located at the confluence of the Indian and Pacific Oceans, their competing strategies shape the regional environment in at least two ways. On the one hand, the actions of Beijing and Washington directly affect the sovereignty and security of coastal states, particularly in the South China Sea, where China is deploying a range of hybrid actions—occupation and reclamation of islets, harassment of fishermen and coast guards from other nations, cyberattacks and information operations—to which Washington responds by increasing freedom of navigation operations and other naval exercises. On the other hand, both China and the United States are investing in deepened security partnerships, which are vectors of their regional influence.
Faced with the effects of Sino-American rivalry, Southeast Asian states are in turn developing defense strategies and policies aimed at protecting themselves and promoting their interests, while at the same time prompting a redefinition of the regional security architecture (RSA). The latter can be broadly divided into three systems: bilateral and minilateral cooperation frameworks serving an operational purpose; partnerships with the United States, perceived by most neighboring countries as guarantors of regional stability and therefore deserving of special attention; and finally, a juxtaposition of multilateral forums organized around the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). These forums are designed as spaces for regional cooperation and socialization, intended to facilitate adherence to a set of norms, enable the emergence of common strategic perceptions and, above all, dilute the influence of extra-regional powers such as China, the United States, India and Japan within a broader group under the leadership of the association. [...]
Juliette Loesch is associate research fellow at Ifri's Center for Asian Studies.
This article is available only in French and has been published in Politique étrangère, Vol. 90, No. 4, 2025.
Available in:
Themes and regions
Share
Author(s)
Juliette LOESCH
Associate Research Fellow, Center for Asian Studies, Ifri
Find out more
Discover all our analyses
The Global NATO Debate
The ultimate direction taken by the Alliance – be it a ‘return to home base,’ a ‘global expansion’ or the pursuit of ‘global missions’ – will be heavily influenced by perceptions of what happens in Afghanistan over the next two years.
Considerations on NATO’s Future Direction
The question of how the Alliance can best meet the common security problems of its member states should determine the revision of the Strategic Concept and analysis of the future of NATO in general.
NATO: A View from Central Europe
Poland is not just concerned with the usefulness of the Alliance, but also with what can be done to make it more effective, and to maintain its relevance and good health in the decades ahead.
NATO and ESDP: Institutional Complexities and Political Realities
With 50 years’ seniority over the ESDP, and despite its austere origins, NATO transformed itself during the 20th century into a political-bureaucratic machine in search of a more appropriate international role.